The last progressive Republican in the White House won re-election by the largest margin of any president since Washington -- before it all fell apart.

President Nixon gives a double V-sign during the Inaugural Ball to celebrate his election to a second term, Jan. 26, 1973. (Arnold Sachs/Getty Images)

On this, the 100th birthday of Richard Nixon, the slogan from his first campaign for Congress is the salient fact: "One of us." His dreams were ours -- and so, in the end, were his sins.

The life of no president says more about this country. Nixon's accomplishments sing of the finest American attributes -- daring, audacity, resilience and grit. His fall is an incantation of the nation's flaws, of meanness, prejudice, avarice and corruption.

We live in a world that Nixon made. His February 1972 opening to China -- that planet-stunning handshake with Mao -- set the earth's peoples on a new and liberating course. It was the first great crack in the Iron Curtain; a bell tolling for the Soviet Union and the Cold War, an indispensible step toward an integrated world economy that would lift billions from want and grant them, as he so hoped, a measure of peace.

"What a vision must exist then now in Nixon," marveled Norman Mailer that summer in Miami and the Siege of Chicago. "What a dream to save the land."

Nine months after his return from China, Nixon won re-election by the largest margin of any president since George Washington, carrying every state but Massachusetts.

Then, debacle. On the anvil of the presidency, in an era of war and rampage, social upheaval and generational turmoil, the insistent flaws in his character gave way. Nixon broke.

"He had turned a dream into an obsession," Henry Kissinger wrote in his memoir, Years of Upheaval. Consumed by his hatred of enemies, real and imagined, Nixon okayed illegal wiretaps, burglaries, assaults and the cover-up that ultimately brought him down.

"What gave Nixon his driven quality was the titanic struggle among the various personalities within him," Kissinger wrote. "And it was a struggle that never ended; there was never a permanent victory between the dark and the sensitive sides of his nature. Now one, now another personality predominated, creating an overall impression of menace, of torment, of unpredictability and, in the final analysis, of enormous vulnerability."

***

Americans, at their best, are romantics. As was Nixon. He dreamed of noble triumphs in international affairs; asked to use Woodrow Wilson's desk in the Oval Office. He was sworn in as vice president on a Quaker Bible opened to the beatitude: Blessed are the Peacemakers. "We are asking you to join us in a great venture," he told congressional leaders in 1972, after his second historic trip that year, to sign a nuclear arms treaty with the leaders of the Soviet Union. "We may change the world for a while."

He embodied, too, another great American virtue: pragmatism. His was the last progressive Republican presidency, his White House manned by bright young men (and women) who devised forward-thinking reforms for health care, poverty, civil rights and affirmative action, the treatment of American Indians, the advancement of women and protection of the environment.

He could be achingly, clumsily kind. In 2012, his alma mater, Whittier College, settled a decades-long dispute with the National Archives and opened more than 300 oral histories it had conducted among Nixon's friends and family to historians. In one of them, a classmate at Duke Law School recalls how a fellow student, a victim of polio, needed to be carried up the stone steps of a building to class, and how it was Dick Nixon who assigned himself the task.

Nixon had exceptional powers of perception and intelligence, but little grace. He was not unhandsome in his twenties and thirties, but as he aged the famous five o'clock shadow, the spatulate nose and flabby jowls left him sport for caricature. During the 1960 presidential campaign, Marshall McLuhan watched Nixon in the televised debate with Jack Kennedy and concluded, in Understanding Media, that the then-vice president came across as "the railway lawyer who signs leases that are not in the interests of the folks in the little town."

A young Roger Ailes, who helped craft Nixon's resurgence in the 1968 presidential campaign, told author Joe McGinniss in The Selling of the President that the challenge was that Nixon "was 42 years old the day he was born" and that voters "figure other kids got footballs for Christmas, Nixon got a briefcase and he loved it."

He was raised in the hicks, the son of a loud, uncouth grocer and an emotionally austere and often-absent mother. His childhood was marked by emotional privation and the death of two cherished brothers. It left him awkward, shy, peculiar.

"I wish you would come home right now," he wrote his mother as a boy of 10. He signed the letter, "Your good dog, Richard."

Nixon was "badly, badly hurt" as a child, said his friend and aide Bryce Harlow. He never learned to trust, and people shied from trusting him. "He went up the walls of life with his claws."

As a young man Nixon was spurned by Eastern elites, and seethed ever after with resentment. He went through life like a whipped cur, flinching from real and imagined cuffs. "People react to fear, not love," Nixon told speechwriter William Safire. "They don't teach that in Sunday school, but it's true."

A candidate of the elite, Adlai Stevenson, captured their snobbery and scorn for Nixon, who so angered them by exposing one of their own -- Alger Hiss -- as a Soviet spy. "Nixonland," Stevenson said in a speech in Los Angeles in 1956, was "a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win."

***

In part through self-discernment, Nixon recognized the defects of human character, and employed that knowledge to manipulate his countrymen. He persuaded Americans to gnaw, as he did, on grievances -- and to look upon each other as enemies.

Nixon persuaded Americans to gnaw, as he did, on grievances -- and to look upon each other as enemies.

It was Nixon who helped launch the McCarthy era, whose aides drafted declarations of culture war, who set South against North in his "southern strategy" and instructed his Silent Majority to distrust the country's elect institutions.

"What starts the process, really, are laughs and slights and snubs when you are a kid," he told Ken Clawson, a former aide who saw him in exile after Watergate, and wrote about the visit in the Washington Post. "But if you are reasonably intelligent enough and your anger is deep enough and strong enough, you learn that you can change those attitudes by excellence, personal gut performance while those who have everything are sitting on their fat butts."

"It's a piece of cake until you get to the top," Nixon said to Clawson. But then "you find that you can't stop playing the game the way you've always played it because it is part of you, and you need it as much as an arm or a leg."

The 3,700 hours of White House tapes show the perceptive and visionary Nixon, but also his rancor, venality, paranoia and bigotry.

Who are they after? Hell, they're not after Haldeman or Ehrlichman or Dean; they are after me, the President! They hate my guts!

Get me the names of the Jews, you know, the big Jewish contributors of the Democrats...could we please investigate some of the cocksuckers?

I want the break-in...You're to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them in....Goddammit get in there and get those files. Blow the safe and get them.

***

Time offers perspective. Nixon loyalists have sound cause to argue, as he did at the time, that his faults and transgressions were but pale copies of those displayed by other presidents.

Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman were as cold as Nixon when ordering U.S. bombers to annihilate civilians in war. Ike and Jack and Lyndon had their own Oval Office taping systems, and imperturbably ordered the CIA and the Marines to overthrow the governments of foreign countries. The Kennedy Justice Department tapped phones and passed around tapes of Martin Luther King's sexual encounters. JFK slept with a gangster's moll, and reportedly ordered his intern mistress to fellate a friend in the White House swimming pool while he watched. As an act of dominance, his humiliated aides reported, LBJ made them watch as he defecated on the toilet. The Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, when soliciting the services of the Mafia in the CIA plots against Fidel Castro, were "running a damn Murder Inc." in the Caribbean, as Johnson memorably put it.

But in all our history, perhaps in all our art, there is no story to rival that of Richard Nixon.

"What is best and weakest in America," wrote Garry Wills in Nixon Agonistes, "goes out in reciprocating strength and deficiencies in Richard Nixon."

He was the American innocent, a poor boy who listened to train whistles in the night and rose from desperate anonymity to spectacular triumphs. He was the salesman, the striver, the grafter and grifter -- exploiting America's energies and license, twisting and becoming twisted, consumed by its passions. He was the loser, the discard, the tragic hero -- caught in his con, destroyed by that same rage and resentment he manipulated in others, and saw within himself, but was incapable of curing.

Heroes have sinned, and been humbled. Iconic commercial empires have crumbled. The country has spawned a spectacular roster of rogues, outlaws and villains. But there is no single scene in politics, law, art or commerce to match that of August 9, 1974 -- the tormented Nixon standing in the East Room, pouring out his guts in a rambling plea; then climbing up the stairs of Marine One, the last turn, the thrust of arms up into the air, his fingers forming the emblematic Vs.

"Always remember others may hate you," he told the gathering of aides and family, "but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them and then you destroy yourself."

His rise and fall are, literally, operatic. His flaws repel as they fascinate. He inspired devoted loyalty and un-chambered hate -- at times, or over time, from the same individual. In his multi-faceted character we see flickers of the demagogue Willie Stark, the salesman Willy Loman, the raging Ahab, the wily Burr, the paranoid Captain Queeg.

The campaign pamphlet from the 1946 election had it right: Richard M. Nixon is One of Us.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

The new version of Apple’s signature media software is a mess. What are people with large MP3 libraries to do?

When the developer Erik Kemp designed the first metadata system for MP3s in 1996, he provided only three options for attaching text to the music. Every audio file could be labeled with only an artist, song name, and album title.

Kemp’s system has since been augmented and improved upon, but never replaced. Which makes sense: Like the web itself, his schema was shipped, good enough,and an improvement on the vacuum which preceded it. Those three big tags, as they’re called, work well with pop and rock written between 1960 and 1995. This didn’t prevent rampant mislabeling in the early days of the web, though, as anyone who remembers Napster can tell you. His system stumbles even more, though, when it needs to capture hip hop’s tradition of guest MCs or jazz’s vibrant culture of studio musicianship.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A leading neuroscientist who has spent decades studying creativity shares her research on where genius comes from, whether it is dependent on high IQ—and why it is so often accompanied by mental illness.

As a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who studies creativity, I’ve had the pleasure of working with many gifted and high-profile subjects over the years, but Kurt Vonnegut—dear, funny, eccentric, lovable, tormented Kurt Vonnegut—will always be one of my favorites. Kurt was a faculty member at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop in the 1960s, and participated in the first big study I did as a member of the university’s psychiatry department. I was examining the anecdotal link between creativity and mental illness, and Kurt was an excellent case study.

He was intermittently depressed, but that was only the beginning. His mother had suffered from depression and committed suicide on Mother’s Day, when Kurt was 21 and home on military leave during World War II. His son, Mark, was originally diagnosed with schizophrenia but may actually have bipolar disorder. (Mark, who is a practicing physician, recounts his experiences in two books, The Eden Express and Just Like Someone Without Mental Illness Only More So, in which he reveals that many family members struggled with psychiatric problems. “My mother, my cousins, and my sisters weren’t doing so great,” he writes. “We had eating disorders, co-dependency, outstanding warrants, drug and alcohol problems, dating and employment problems, and other ‘issues.’ ”)

Jim Gilmore joins the race, and the Republican field jockeys for spots in the August 6 debate in Cleveland.

After decades as the butt of countless jokes, it’s Cleveland’s turn to laugh: Seldom have so many powerful people been so desperate to get to the Forest City. There’s one week until the Republican Party’s first primary debate of the cycle on August 6, and now there’s a mad dash to get into the top 10 and qualify for the main event.

With former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore filing papers to run for president on July 29, there are now 17 “major” candidates vying for the GOP nomination, though that’s an awfully imprecise descriptor. It takes in candidates with lengthy experience and a good chance at the White House, like Scott Walker and Jeb Bush; at least one person who is polling well but is manifestly unserious, namely Donald Trump; and people with long experience but no chance at the White House, like Gilmore. Yet it also excludes other people with long experience but no chance at the White House, such as former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson.